- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Proposal Draft 004-15: Leadership Restructuring 2015Please read the proposal, and confine any comments to the proposal only. Designate your wishes by using "AGREE", “BLOCK”, or "STAND ASIDE". Any blocks will require a vote ofthe Council. According to 4.3 of the Party Bylaws, party officers and national representatives shall be chosen by consensus or a vote of at least 60% of members present at the annual meeting.A of 60% quorum requires at least one response from three (4) of six active chapters. The floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking. Active Chapters: Adams/Jefferson DenverDouglas Greater Boulder Pikes Peak San Miguel Thank you, Bill BartlettInterim Council Facilitator 1. Basic Info Date proposed: April 10, 2015 Name of the sponsor(s): Bill Bartlett Chris Allen Laura Clark Michelle Feurer 2. Title: Leadership Restructuring 2015 3. Text of the actual Proposal: The purpose of this proposal is to rearrange our leadership by moving Laura Clark to the position of GPCO Co-chair. This brings male/female balance to the state party chairs. Chris Allen has volunteered to step into the role of State Treasurer, and will be trained by Laura and expand the role as the party grows. Passage of this proposal would mean Laura Clark would be our new Co-chair, and Chris Allen our new State Treasurer. 4. Background: Laura has been heavily involved in our party at the state level. Chris Allen has some personal conflicts and has indicated he would like to step aside but still contribute as a member of the Executive Committee. 5. Justification/Goals: Laura has already been acting as a co-chair in some capacities, and her influence will bring a new fire to the party. This also brings male/female and geographic balance to the party. 6. Pros and Cons: Benefits: Laura has the knowledge and skills for the job! Drawbacks: There will be some pressure on Denver, since she is currently a co-chair. 7. Alternatives to the proposal: We could suggest other leaders, though the sponsors of this proposal feel strongly that this will bring the right chemistry to guide us into 2016. 8. Supporting statements including references to other sources of readily accessible materials to aid in the members’ decision making process. None.
Agree!!!
I'm taking a BLOCK position for a number of reasons.1. This proposal is out of order. The text of the proposal states, "Passage of this proposal would mean Laura Clark would be our new Co-chair, and Chris Allen our new State Treasurer." GPCO Bylaws sections 4.3 and 5.7 require party officers to be selected at an annual meeting; not a forum discussion on which registered Greens cannot participate. 2. The proposal ignores GPCO Procedures and Guidelines section 3.1.3: "Where one person has held an office in the GPCO for longer than 2 years, this office should be reviewed at an annual meeting to see if there are any other qualified people to rotate into that office." 3. GPCO Bylaws require all officers to be elected in odd-numbered years. This proposal would commit Council members to vote for a slate proposed by the current state officers before knowing who the nominees will be.4. A proposal from the state party officers to re-elect themselves is dubious on its face.
Harry, I think your block is out of order. This proposal calls for a REPLACEMENT within the current term of office. We don't have a procedure for such a thing, and the council vote, which we're taking now, would be proper.When is the next annual meeting? Has it been decided yet?Please withdraw your block, Harry. I don't understand the need to upset the apple cart. Do you disagree with the proposal, aside from your interpretation of the rules?
I withdraw my block and AGREE with the proposal.I mistakenly thought the proposal referred to elections at the annual meeting. Mea culpa! Getting a date and location for the annual meeting is key.
I'd like to move (whatever way seems appropriate) that we extend this vote a few more days. This is an important structural vote, and we haven't heard from two of our most vigorous chapters.How do we extend this vote?
I'm going to just extend this agreement seeking another week, since it seems like there is little debate and a simple lack of participation. Unless this strikes anyone as a problem, I think we have found a quorum with Joseph's agreement. Brittany is going to give us a review of the numbers as they stand.
With Bob's vote, the proposal has passed.Final Tally: 4 Agree0 Block0 Stand AsideChapters voting: 4/6Full results attached.
So.. speaking of annual meeting…. do we have an idea of a date yet?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.